US Secretary of State, H. Clinton, wants the UN Security Council to “send a clear message of support to the people of Syria”.

i.e. to get rid of President Bashar al-Assad and have him replaced by somebody else.

Who else?

Recent history shows that each time the US and its Western friends involve themselves in the internal affairs of Middle Eastern nations, things get worse.

* * *

President Obama praised last year’s Egyptian uprising saying it reflected the people’s yearning for “a government that is fair and just and responsive.”

What did they get? A People’s Assembly dominated by the “Freedom and Justice Party” — the Muslim Brotherhood under another name.

15 million Coptic Christians live in fear — killed on the streets, their women abducted.

In Libya, thousands of NATO air strikes resulted in — what?

A National Transitional Council whose draft constitution states that “Islam is the religion of the state and the principal source of legisation is Islamic jurisprudence (i.e. Sharia Law)”.

Already polygamy has been re-legalised.

* * *

If Bashar al-Assad goes, the Sunnis will take over Syria.

There will be a blood-bath.

(see this blog, 10 December 2011 and 13 June 2011)

Lawyer Julian Burnside, QC, is known as a “human rights advocate”.

One of his themes is how “Australia doesn’t need to be protected from asylum seekers: asylum seekers need to be protected from their persecutors”.

And he seems to get away with it.

* * *

Mr Burnside must know that the ones needing protection are those in refugee camps in (or just over the border from) countries where terrorist militias are actively wiping out villages and towns.

He knows well that Australia’s “boat people” make their perilous journeys — not from Afghanistan, Syria, Sudan etc. where deadly persecution goes on 24/7 — but from Indonesia, where they are already relatively safe.

Politicians speak about “border protection”, confident that it’s something Australians will vote for.

Mr Burnside speaks about “asylum seekers”, knowing that will appeal to his likely audiences.

Genuine at-risk refugees awaiting migration away from active war-zones — they’re the ones most needing someone to speak for them.

NSW Police Commissioner, Andrew Scipione, proposes that new recruits for the police force must have no tattoos.

Opposition party spokesman, John Robertson, calls the suggestion “absurd”: focussing on something trivial instead of on investigating serious crime.

The police response is that the move is about “professionalism”.

* * *

Most, or at least many, tattoos depict themes like the occult, sex, wild animals, weapons etc. – symbols of rebellion against society’s constraints.

Is it too much to require somebody wishing to make a career of upholding society’s values to avoid looking as though heshe has a hankering for a bit of the opposite?

* * *

True religion has always been suspicious of tattoos.

The Bible itself says, “You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead; neither shall you make in yourselves any figures or marks.” (Leviticus chapter 19)

The impression is that God forbade these things because they were common amongst the surrounding tribes which followed false religions and gods.

Tattooing probably isn’t a black and white issue, but going against fashion in order to ensure that your example will not cause confusion – that sounds a good way to go.

The occupants of Canberra’s Aboriginal “Tent Embassy” did their cause no good by terrorising our Prime Minister on Thursday.

That doesn’t mean that the Embassy should not exist.

Aboriginal culture includes the notion of their spirits belong to the land.

Not any land, but the land associated with one’s clan, totem or whatever.

Belonging to this particular land, you don’t feel the same about any other piece of land.

There’s little temptation to invade the land of the next-door tribe.

If Europeans felt that way, World War I and World War II may never have happened.

* * *

So January 26 (“Invasion Day”) is arguably a bad day.

How to make the invaders understand?

Give them a taste of their own medicine?

Invade/annexe a piece of land important to white Australian culture and see how they like it?

The choice of the “Embassy” site makes sense.

* * *

In fact both we and the land belong to God, Father of all races.

Saint Mary MacKillop said, “In the trials, annoyances and anxieties we daily experience, may we ever recognise that loving Fatherly Hand . . . .”

At present, neither Australia’s blacks nor whites seem to quite get it.

Let us pray that we soon will.

After last election Julia Gillard promised Independent MP, Mr Wilkie, that she would legislate for mandatory pre-commitment for high-intensity poker machines by 2014.

That was enough to buy his support in forming a government.

Did she ever intend to keep her promise?

Now she has got around to saying she isn’t going to do it.

* * *

The government party calls itself the ALP.

What does the “L” stand for?

Its policies for a couple of generations suggest that their loyalties are not for those who “Labor”.

Would it be more appropriate for the “L” to stand for “Liars”

Or perhaps the “L” might stand for “Leaned on”.

This time they have been leaned on by the Registered Clubs sector, who seem to have a lot of clout based on having a lot of money . . . .

Money taken from the pockets of vulnerable problem gamblers.

Is the alternative government any better?

It’s a worry that the title of the opposition party, the LCP, also sports an “L” . . . .

Britain’s Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice has recently ruled that there is no justification for prohibiting private abortion clinics from advertising their services on television.

Private abortion businesses will be permitted to advertise themselves using terms such as “post-conception advice services”, with the emphasis on how they can arrange ultrasound scans etc.

They will not be obliged to state that they have a financial interest in aborting the babies of those who come seeking “post-conception advice”.

* * *

The Committee requires that the adverts will be subject to a Code stipulating that such advertisements are not to be “harmful, offensive or misleading”.

Doesn’t everybody know that abortion is harmful to the baby?

And isn’t it also harmful to the whole society — in its cheapening of the sanctity of human life.

The small lives to be exterminated are children of God.

And therefore of infinite worth – a fact more important than the profit margins of Mary Stokes International etc.